I’m for reinvention, and if thinking radically is what it takes to make the more typical and known processes evolve, so be it. I do have skepticism about a mode

I’m for reinvention, and if thinking radically is what it takes to make the more typical and known processes evolve, so be it. I do have skepticism about a model liberated from the text file - most tools fall back heavily on our use of language as our most powerful tool, the extent that a visual system like a UI replaces that usually represents equal constraints on what you can do. But constraints are what make programming languages great and easier to work with than machine code. If this boils down to a hierarchy of constraints the question that needs to be asked is “why are there so many different ways of constraining a program’s behavior” (via programming languages)? If there were only one way, much of the innovation wished for here, as abstract as it may be, would have probably already been worked on. Instead the base shifts constantly and the techniques for building changes everywhere. Sometimes I wonder why all of programming can’t boil down to C code. Python would first be translated to C, Rust would be an analysis engine for C, etc. It is elitist to make programming a meta language and field of study just to understand and use effectively, even if not consciously done. The lack of standardization, compared to what could be, drives this complexity. You’ll know programming has revolutionized again when an order of magnitude more people can do it without dedicating chunks of their life to it.